fluoridealert.

org

http://fluoridealert.org/articles/fluoridation_flint_lead/

Fluoridation: Worsening the Lead Crisis in Flint, and Beyond

Press Release
Print-Friendly Copy of Report

Introduction
Over the past few weeks, the nation has watched in horror at the lead poisoning crisis unfolding in Flint, Michigan.
The details from Flint have been shocking: tap water so corrosive it caused lead levels in some homes to meet the
classification for hazardous waste; and politics so corrosive that while the children in Flint were drinking lead-filled
water, there was one and only one address in Flint that got clean water: the GM factory.
Lead is a powerful neurotoxin, one that causes irreversible damage to the developing brain. The damage manifests in
reduced IQs, behavioral problems, and violent behavior. But lead is not the only neurotoxin that Flint children are now
ingesting in their tap water.
Like most other urban areas in the United States, Flint adds a corrosive fluoride chemical to its water in the name of
preventing tooth decay (aka water fluoridation). This fluoride chemical is not only a neurotoxin, its repeatedly been
found to leach lead from water pipes and increase the levels of lead in childrens blood.
In short, fluoridation programs are adding fuel to the fire of Americas lead crisis, in Flint and beyond.

Flint Is the Tip of the Iceberg

The staggering risks from lead poisoning extend far beyond the
borders of Flint. In the words of one scientist, Flint is the tip of the
iceberg.
In fact, many cities across the United States have higher rates of
lead poisoning than Flint, including at least 6 other (fluoridated)
cities in Michigan itself.
As in Flint, tap water can be a major source of lead exposure,
despite debunked claims to the contrary by some public health
agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control.
Although lead water pipes were banned in 1986, millions of
Americans still drink tap water that travails through lead service
pipes and many millions more drink water that passes through
lead-containing brass fixtures all with a complex brew of corrosive water treatment chemicals, including chlorine,
chloramines, and fluorosilicic acid.
Clean water activist Erin Brockovich stated recently that the U.S. is facing a national water crisis. Fluoridation is
contributing to that crisis.

Fluorosilicic What?
Fluorosilicic acid (FSA) is a corrosive fluoride chemical captured in the emission scrubbers of the phosphate industry

that many urban areas in the U.S., including Flint, add to their water in an attempt to prevent tooth decay.
Several lines of evidence suggest that FSA-spiked water is
contributing to unsafe lead exposures in children.
To be clear, Flints lead problem was primarily caused by the
decision in April 2014 to obtain drinking water from the corrosive,
chloride-laden Flint River, which was further compounded by the
citys inexcusable failure to add anti-corrosives to this water.
These two factors were sufficient to create a major corrosion
problem in Flints aging pipes, even without fluoridation.
Fluoridation, however, may be making the problem worse.

Fluoridation Increases the Acidity of Water

Some of the first indications that FSA could leach lead into water came in the early 1990s when water departments in
Maryland and Washington noticed significant drops in water lead levels immediately after terminating their fluoridation
programs.
More recently, water departments have confirmed that the addition
of FSA can increase the acidity of water, which in turn makes the
water more corrosive.
In San Francisco, water treatment engineers found that the addition
of FSA to the citys soft water reduced the pH from 9 to less than
7.5. (Wilczak 2010) Because of this, San Francisco added
additional caustic soda to the water to bring the pH back to noncorrosive levels.
Similarly, in Thunder Bay, Canada, the addition of FSA was found to
reduce the pH of the citys soft water (from 7.54 to 7.27), nearly
tripling the rate of lead leaching from pipes.
The Thunder Bay drinking water is corrosive by nature. Addition of fluoridating agents to the water, especially
fluorosilicic acid would increase this tendency and hence increase lead levels at the consumer tap. The use of an
anti-corrosion agent, such as sodium hydroxide as demonstrated in this experiment, would be needed to counteract
this effect. (Vukmanich 2009)
The Thunder Bay and San Francisco experiments highlight the hazards of adding FSA to water, particularly soft
water, where there is no offsetting attempt to increase the pH. This is what happened in Flint.

Although Flints water is not as soft as Thunder Bay or San

Francisco, documents released by Flints water treatment plant
confirm that the pH of Flints tap water declined during the period
when anti-corrosives were not added. As reported by Michigan
Public Radio, Data available online from the City of Flint show that
the pH of treated water leaving the plant has been trending
downward becoming more acidic.
In December 2014, the average pH of treated water was 8.04; by
August of 2015, the average pH of treated water was just 7.34. In
most instances, the pH of the treated water was less than the pretreated water, thus suggesting that some component(s) of the water
treatment process was responsible for the increase in acidity. FSA may have been one of the factors contributing to
the acidification of Flints water.

Fluoridation Can Leach Lead from Pipes, Even in Non-Acidic Water

Even if fluoridation did not reduce the pH of Flints water, it could still have contributed to Flints lead crisis. As
explained by scientists from the University of North Carolina, FSA does not leach lead simply because it is an acid.
(Maas, et al. 2007). FSA may also leach lead due to its unique affinity for lead.
In carefully controlled laboratory experiments, the North Carolina scientists found that FSA can increase the leaching
of lead in non-acidic waters (pH = 8), even from common brass fixtures, like faucets, that contain small quantities of
lead. (Maas 2007)
The scientists found that combinations of FSA and chlorinated disinfectants can produce more severe effects than the
chemicals by themselves, sometimes dramatically so.
In one experiment, the combination of FSA and chlorine caused lead
levels to spike as high as 1,000 ppb, nearly 70 times higher than EPAs
action level, while, in another experiment, the joint action of FSA and
chloramines produced lead levels to spike as high as 400 ppb, nearly 30
times the EPA action level.
To be clear, the North Carolina study used higher concentrations of FSA
than are added to public tap water. The study used about 2 times more
FSA than the level historically added to U.S. water supplies, and about 3
times more than the levels generally added today. As a result, the use of
FSA for fluoridation programs may not produce as dramatic an effect as
the North Carolina team observed.
The North Carolina studys findings do demonstrate, however, that
despite theoretical arguments to the contrary highly diluted levels of
FSA can leach lead from pipes and common brass fixtures, even in pHadjusted water, and this effect can be unpredictably amplified in the
presence of other common water treatment chemicals.

FSA Linked to Elevated Blood Lead Levels in

Children
So, FSA can leach lead from pipes in laboratory experiments. This is now clear. But what about in real world
conditions: can FSA contribute to measurable increases in our lead exposure?

The first two studies to investigate this issue analyzed the blood
lead levels of almost 400,000 children living in areas with and
without fluoridated water in New York and Massachusetts . (Masters
1999, 2000). These studies found that children living in areas with
FSA-treated water were at increased risk of having markedly
elevated blood levels (>10 ug/dl).
These studies, conducted by Dartmouth professor Roger Masters
and chemical engineer Myron Coplan, sent shock waves through
the public health community. As Masters noted, If further research
confirms our findings, this may well be the worst environmental
poison since leaded gasoline.
Even the CDC has conceded that, if research confirms the link
between fluoridation and elevated lead exposure, fluoridation would
need to end, noting that efforts to prevent dental caries via the use
of fluoridated drinking water should continue unless a causal
impact of certain fluoridation methods on PbB [blood lead]
concentration is demonstrated by additional research. (Macek
2006)
This brings us to CDCs own study on the issue.
After criticizing the methodology of Masters and Coplans studies,
the CDC published an analysis of a smaller sample of 10,000
children from across the country, whose blood was measured for lead during the 1988-1994 National Health and
Nutrition Examination Survey. (Macek 2006).
The CDC study which controlled for the key factors known to influence blood lead levels, including race/ethnicity,
poverty status, and urbanicity is sometimes touted as refuting the link between fluoridation and lead hazards, but
a close look at its data shows that the study does little to dampen concern.
According to the CDCs data, FSA was associated with an elevated risk for high blood lead (> 5 ug/dl) in every
single category of children identified by the CDC, even after controlling for the other key risk factors. FSA was
associated with
a 20% increased risk (but not statistically significant) for high blood lead levels among children living in
houses made prior to 1946;
a 40% increased risk (but not statistically significant) for high blood lead levels among children living in
houses made between 1946 and 1973;
a 70% increased risk (but not statistically significant) for high blood lead levels among children living in
houses made after 1974;
a 530% increased risk (which was statistically significant) for high blood lead levels among children living in
houses with unknown ages.
Since most of these elevated risks were not statistically significant, the CDC dismissed them as essentially a random
fluke. However, the consistency in the direction of the risk, coupled with the statistically significant 530% increased
risk for children in homes of unknown age, raises a serious red flag.

Even the CDC has acknowledged that the study does not refute the
connection between fluoridation and lead, and that it is possible that
larger samples might have identified additional, significant
differences.
In fact, when Coplan and the North Carolina team re-analyzed CDCs
data by placing all children exposed to FSA and sodium fluorosilicate
in one group (silicofluorides), and all other children in another, they
found that the children exposed to silicofluoridated water had a
significantly elevated risk of having high blood lead levels. (Coplan
2007)
According to Coplans re-analysis, children from the silicofluoridated communities had a 20% greater risk of having
blood lead levels in excess of 5 ug/dl. Coplans team estimated that the risk for exceeding the 10 ug/dl threshold
would be even greater.

Fluoride Can Increase the Uptake & Toxicity of Lead

In addition to leaching lead from water pipes, animal studies have found that fluorides increase the risk of lead
poisoning by facilitating the uptake of lead into the blood, and intensifying leads effects on the body, including the
brain.
In the 1970s, US government scientists from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Food & Drug Administration
(FDA) quietly reported that rats exposed to lead and sodium fluoride accumulate far higher concentrations of lead in
their blood and bone than rats who are only exposed to lead.
Not only that, the NIH/FDA team reported that the combination of Pb and F was much more severely toxic than
either compound alone. (Mahaffey 1976) At the time this study was conducted, lead was still being purposely
added to gasoline, and millions of Americans were already drinking fluoridated water.
Despite the studys potentially huge public health implications, the FDA and NIH kept mum. Other than a short
abstract in an obscure journal, the study was never published and there is no record of either the FDA or NIH
following up with further research.
The issue remained completely off the radar for three decades untilin the wake of Masters and Coplans studiesthe
CDC recommended that studies of animal toxicology be conducted to investigate fluorides interactions with lead.
(Macek 2006)
Shortly after CDCs recommendation, a Brazilian team led by Dr. Raquel Gerlach published a paper that corroborated
a key part of the buried FDA/NIH study. Gerlachs team confirmed that:
[C]o-exposure to fluoride and lead from the beginning of gestation consistently increases the concentrations of lead
in whole blood and in calcified tissues . . . . Lead concentrations were found to be 2.5 times higher in the superficial
enamel, 3 times higher in surface bone, 2 times higher in whole bone, and 1.7 times higher in the dentine when the
animals were co-exposed to fluoride, thus indicating a consistent rise in the amounts of lead found in whole blood and
calcified tissues in the F + Pb Group. (Sawan 2010)
As the NIH/FDA team likely understood back in the 1970s, these findings have serious implications for populations
exposed to increased amounts of both lead and fluoride, particularly young children. As Gerlachs team explained:
it is likely that young children may experience episodes of exposure to high levels of fluoride, which may cause their
BPb levels to increase and produce more lead toxicity. (Sawan 2010)

In a follow-up study, Gerlachs team reported a further twist: Not only does fluoride increase the uptake of lead into
blood, but lead magnifies fluorides damaging effects on teeth, causing a greater incidence and severity of dental
fluorosis which may help explain why the burden of dental fluorosis disproportionately impacts the heavily leadexposed black community. (Leite 2011)
Effects on teeth, however, are not the main concern. As noted earlier, both lead and fluoride are neurotoxins that can
damage the developing brain. Could the combined exposure to both be causing a worse effect than either one alone?
Recent animal experiments suggest the answer is yes. (Niu 2009, 2014, 2015)
But dont expect warnings anytime soon from public health authorities. As with lead in water, health authorities at the
local, state, and federal levels have been extremely slow to address the risks and lack of benefits of the nations
floundering fluoridation program.
While health authorities continue to dodge the issue, water consumers would be well advised to begin taking
measures to minimize their fluoride intake, starting with the fluoride chemicals pouring through Americas leadcontaminated water infrastructure.
References:
Coplan MJ, et al. (2007). Confirmation of and explanations for elevated blood lead and other disorders in children
exposed to water disinfection and fluoridation chemicals. Neurotoxicology 28(5):1032-42.
Leite GA, et al. (2011). Exposure to lead exacerbates dental fluorosis. Archives of Oral Biology 56(7):695-702.
Maas RP, et al. (2007). Effects of fluoridation and disinfection agent combinations on lead leaching from leaded-brass
parts. Neurotoxicology 28(5):1023-31.
Macek M, et al. (2006). Blood lead concentrations in children and method of water fluoridation in the United States,
1988-1994. Environmental Health Perspectives 114:130-134.
Mahaffey KR, Stone CL. (1976). Effect of High Fluorine (F) Intake on Tissue Lead (Pb)
Concentrations. Federation Proceedings. 35: 256.
Masters R, et al. (2000). Association of silicofluoride treated water with elevated blood lead. Neurotoxicology. 21:
1091-1099.
Masters RD, Coplan M. (1999). Water treatment with silicofluorides and lead toxicity. International Journal of
Environmental Studies.56: 435-449.
Niu R, et al. (2015). Proteome alterations in cortex of mice exposed to fluoride and lead. Biological Trace Element
Research 164(1):99-105.
Niu R, et al. (2014). Proteomic analysis of hippocampus in offspring male mice exposed to fluoride and lead.
Biological Trace Element Research 162(1-3):227-33.
Niu R, et al. (2009). Decreased learning ability and low hippocampus glutamate in offspring rats exposed to fluoride
and lead. Environmental Toxicology & Pharmacology 28(2):254-8.
Sawan RM, et al. (2010). Fluoride increases lead concentrations in whole blood and in calcified tissues from leadexposed rats. Toxicology 271(1-2):21-6.
Vukmanich J. (2009). The effects of fluoridating agents on the chemistry of Thunder Bay drinking water. Available
online: http://www.fluoridealert.org/uploads/vukmanich-2009.pdf
Wilczak A, et al. (2010). Water conditioning for LCR compliance and control of metals release in San Franciscos

water system. Journal of the American Water Works Association 102(3):52-64.

Fluoride Action Network 2016. All Rights Reserved.